Like this:

Related

Why won’t you support legitimizing my particular eating fetish by redefining food to include cinder blocks?

People think I’m weird for what I eat, because they don’t consider cinder blocks to be legitimate food.

By law, cinder blocks cannot be labelled as food. This is codified discrimination against those of us who like to eat cinder blocks! If the law included cinder blocks as food, then people would have to accept that me eating cinder blocks is exactly the same as them eating other kinds of food. But as it stands, I am being denied my basic civil right to call what I love to eat, “food” and have the state sanction it as such. Where is the equal protection under the law?

How does me eating cinder blocks affect you and your eating preferences? Why should it matter to you whether or not the definition of food includes cinder blocks? Nobody is going to force YOU to eat cinder blocks.

Why should the law stigmatize me and others like me because it doesn’t include what we love to eat into the category of food? I demand the laws be changed so that food includes cinder blocks!

Look, I have a good job, I’m articulate and intelligent and I’m a productive member of society. I turned out pretty good, didn’t I? Therefore, my particular eating fetish should be legitimized by redefining food to include cinder blocks, because it obviously hasn’t hurt me!

Here is my response to two of his points:
1. OK, let’s “describe” marriage according to the chosen people of God (the Hebrews) as they understood it in Biblical days: Marriage was between one man and as many women as he could afford. Wives were bought and sold by the fathers or given as rewards for bravery in battle. Wives had no civil rights, were to cover their heads when they prayed and had to remain silent in the assembly. This is because they were considered as property (Think Saudi Arabia, 2011)
2. “Heterosexual marriage produces and protects the next generation so civilization can continue in the healthiest way possible.” The fear that allowing gay marriage would destroy the next generation is simply absurd. No one contends that there is no difference between a man and a woman, or of the distinct and unique perspectives each can bring to a relationship and a community. What one can very effectively argue against is that “only a marriage between one man and one woman will be the healthiest possible environment for the raising of a child.” Clearly there are countless examples of a man and woman who have created atrocious and very destructive family environments. The bottom line, in my eyes, is that the most important factor in producing a healthy family is when the adults exhibit and live a life in which love and respect for all people is primary, whether the family is composed of one or two parents, an extended family, or has a varied gender composition.